Regional Findings

60 Global Slavery Index 2018

05 REGIONAL FINDINGS

Regional findings 62 Prevalence across the regions 62 Vulnerability across the regions 64 Government responses across the regions 66

Africa 68 Americas 76 Arab States 82 Asia & the Pacific 86 Europe & Central Asia 92

Miner working in an Angolan village not far from the Congolese border. Diamond extraction in Angola has over the past decades been linked to torture, murder, and forced displacement, and relies on both child labour and forced labour. Photo credit: Olivier Polet/Corbis via Getty Images Regional Findings 61 62 Global Slavery Index 2018

REGIONAL FINDINGS

Prevalence across the regions

Globally, there were 5.4 victims of modern slavery for every 1,000 people in the world. Looking regionally, the prevalence of modern slavery was highest in Africa with 7.6 victims for every 1,000 people in the region (Figure 1). This was followed by Asia and the Pacific (6.1 victims) and Europe and Central Asia (3.9 victims). The prevalence in the Arab States and Americas was lower, at 3.3 and 1.9 victims per 1,000 people respectively (noting the caveats below regarding data limitations, particularly in the Arab States).

When we separated forced labour and forced marriage, Data limitations – prevalence a different regional picture emerged. For forced labour, Asia and the Pacific had the highest prevalence (4.0 While regional estimates of prevalence of modern slavery victims for every 1,000 people), followed by Europe and were presented in the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery, Central Asia (3.6) and Africa (2.8). The prevalence of forced critical gaps in available data were noted. These are labour was lowest in the Arab States (2.2 victims) and the particularly problematic in the Arab States where only two Americas (1.3 victims). The prevalence of forced marriage national surveys were undertaken, neither of which was was highest in Africa (4.8 victims), followed by Asia and the a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) country, despite the Pacific region (2.0 victims), and the Arab States (1.1 victims). incidence of forced labour reported by various sources in The prevalence was lowest in the Americas (0.7 per 1,000 such sectors as domestic work and construction in the GCC. people) and Europe and Central Asia (0.4 victims). Further, measurement of forced marriage among residents of countries within the region is particularly problematic At the regional level, the impact of conflict and state-imposed where there are no surveys. Taken together, these gaps forced labour remained consistent with the global findings, point to a significant underestimate of the extent of modern with the highest prevalence occurring primarily in countries slavery in this region. with well-documented state-imposed forced labour or marked by protracted or recent conflict. The countries Similarly, it is typically not possible to survey in countries with highest prevalence across the regions included that are experiencing profound and current conflict, such as Eritrea, Burundi, and the Central African Republic (Africa); Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, South Sudan, and parts of Nigeria Venezuela, Haiti, and Dominican Republic (Americas); North and Pakistan. Yet it is known that conflict is a significant risk Korea, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (Asia and the Pacific); Syria, factor – the breakdown of the rule of law, the loss of social Iraq, and Yemen (Arab States); and Belarus, Turkmenistan, supports, and the disruption that occurs with conflict all and Macedonia (Europe and Central Asia). increase risk of both forced labour and forced marriage. The lack of data from countries experiencing conflict means that modern slavery estimates in regions where conflict countries are situated will understate the problem. Drawing on vulnerability data goes some way towards mitigating the impact of this gap; however, the need for better data in conflict countries remains an urgent research priority. Regional Findings 63

FIGURE 1 Regional prevalence of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) by category

8 7.6

6.1 6

5 4.8

4.0 3.9 4 3.6 3.3

3 2.8

2.2 1.9 2.0 2 1.3 1.1 1 0.7 0.4

0 Africa Americas Arab States Asia & The Pacific Europe & Central Asia

Modern Slavery Forced Labour Forced Marriage 64 Global Slavery Index 2018

Vulnerability across the regions

An improved understanding of the drivers of modern The Africa region had the highest average vulnerability slavery – that is, the factors that increase vulnerability to score (62 percent), followed by the Arab States (57 percent), modern slavery – is critical to the development of successful Asia and the Pacific (46 percent), and the Americas interventions. Our assessment of vulnerability is conducted (41 percent), while the lowest levels of vulnerability are at the national level and covers five dimensions: governance found in Europe and Central Asia (28 percent); (Figure 3). issues, lack of basic needs, inequality, disenfranchised Looking behind the overall vulnerability scores to the groups, and effects of conflict (see Appendix 2: Part 1A.) dimension level, it is apparent that across the regions, vulnerability related to governance issues, lack of basic A regional analysis of our vulnerability measures needs, and disenfranchised groups were highest in suggests higher risk of modern slavery in the Arab States Africa, vulnerability related to inequality was highest in the and the Americas than is evident in the prevalence data. Americas, and vulnerability related to conflict was highest The Arab States had the second highest vulnerability in the Arab States (Table 1). Figure 3 shows how countries scores across the five regions, despite having relatively in the region scored in relation to the regional average on low prevalence estimates. each dimension of vulnerability.

Princess, 43, trafficked from Nigeria into forced sexual exploitation in Italy. “We saw people return from Europe rich. A woman said she would give me work in a Nigerian restaurant in Italy. When I arrived I was told I had to pay back a £40,000 debt before I could leave. They said they would kill me if I didn’t work as a prostitute. The work was so dangerous. I was stabbed twice. I managed to leave, and now I work to help other women escape. These traffickers take everything from you – all that makes you human.” Photo credit: Quintina Valero for The Guardian Regional Findings 65

FIGURE 2 Overall vulnerability score dot plot with regional averages (higher number indicates higher vulnerability)

100

Africa Americas Arab States Asia & The Pacific Europe & Central Asia

Individual Countries Average Vulnerability 66 Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 1 Regional average vulnerability scores by dimension (higher number indicates higher vulnerability)

Dis- Overall Governance Lack of enfranchised Effects of weighted Region issues basic needs Inequality groups conflict average

Africa 60.8 38.4 43.1 44.5 35.7 62.0

Americas 44.3 21.4 49.9 33.5 22.9 41.4

Arab States 64.8 24.6 41.2 33.4 40.0 57.2

Asia and the Pacific 49.3 31.1 32.3 34.0 32.4 46.1

Europe and Central Asia 34.6 16.8 30.2 34.5 20.1 28.2

Total 48.6 27.0 38.4 37.3 28.7 45.6

Government responses across the regions

The Europe and Central Asia region had the strongest themselves within these two regions were different, with response to modern slavery, with countries scoring an some countries in the Asia and the Pacific region starting average BB rating. Within the broader Europe and Central to provide safety nets and protections for people in high Asia region, European governments in particular are risk sectors or groups. The Africa region, with a CC rating, generally characterised by both high levels of political will had the lowest average regional government response and resources, and this is backed up by regional bodies score, but this should not diminish important improvements that provide monitoring and oversight. The Americas made in recent years, including introduction of criminal had the second strongest responses to modern slavery, laws and national referral mechanisms in several countries scoring an average B rating, reflecting improvements in including Côte d’Ivoire and Sierra Leone. Despite this, in both victim identification mechanisms and support services. Africa, limited resources and ongoing conflict continued to Both Asia and the Pacific and the Arab States have a CCC hinder more comprehensive responses to modern slavery. rating on government responses. However, the responses

TABLE 2 Government response rating and milestone percentage by region

Average Support Criminal rating Regions survivor justice Coordination Address risk Supply chains

CC Africa 28.2 30.9 32.9 42.5 0.3

B Americas 46.5 48.7 47.2 62.8 4.1

CCC Arab States 43.3 35.3 30.5 40.5 0.0

CCC Asia and the Pacific 37.5 36.9 35.6 48.1 1.0

BB Europe and Central Asia 57.4 57.0 57.4 64.6 10.9 Regional Findings 67

FIGURE 3 Overall government response score dot plot with regional averages (higher number indicates stronger response)

100

Africa Americas Arab States Asia & The Pacific Europe & Central Asia

Individual Countries Average Government Response 68 Global Slavery Index 2018

AFRICA REGION HIGHLIGHTS

Cameroon

Central African Morocco Republic

Senegal

Algeria Libya Egypt Eritrea

Cape Verde Djibouti Mauritania Mali Niger Chad Sudan Somalia Gambia Guinea-Bissau Nigeria Ethiopia South Sudan Guinea

Uganda Kenya Sierra Togo Benin Leone Democratic Rwanda Republic of the Congo LiberiaCôte Ghana Equatorial Burundi d'Ivoire Guinea Tanzania

Malawi Burkina Faso Gabon Angola

Zambia Republic of the Congo Mauritius

Namibia

Botswana Madagascar

South Africa Mozambique

Lesotho Zimbabwe Swaziland

high low

Estimated Number of Forced labour Average Vulnerability Score People in Modern Slavery percentage 37% 9,240,000 Regional Proportion Forced marriage 62/100 of Global Estimate percentage 63% 23%

Average Government Response Score AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC CC C D Regional Findings 69

With 51 countries and 16 percent of the world’s population, Africa is enormously diverse in terms of history, development, people, culture, and religion. This regional study summarises a longer set of findings that can be found in the Global Slavery Index: Africa Report.

Prevalence within Africa

On any given day in 2016, an estimated 9.2 million men, Within the region, Eritrea, Burundi, and Central African women, and children were living in modern slavery in Africa. Republic were the countries with the highest prevalence The region has the highest prevalence of modern slavery in of modern slavery; however, Nigeria and the Democratic the world with 7.6 per 1,000 people in the region. Republic of the Congo had the highest absolute number and accounted for over one-quarter (26.3 percent) of all When considering the forms of modern slavery, the rate of victims in the region. forced marriage (4.8 victims per 1,000 people in the region) was higher than the rate of forced labour (2.8 victims per These regional figures, while important, should be 1,000 people in the region). interpreted cautiously given the gaps and limitations of data in certain countries. For example, it is not possible to survey Over half of all victims of forced labour exploitation in countries that are experiencing profound and current (54 percent) were held in debt bondage, with similar conflict, such as Libya, South Sudan, and parts of Nigeria. proportions of men and women in the region trapped The lack of data from countries experiencing conflict means through debt. An estimated 400,000 people in the region that modern slavery estimates in these countries are likely were victims of forced sexual exploitation, accounting for to understate the problem.2 eight percent of all victims of forced sexual exploitation and commercial sexual exploitation of children worldwide.

TABLE 3 Estimated prevalence of modern slavery by country, Africa

Estimated prevalence Estimated Regional (victims per 1,000 absolute number of rank Country population) victims Population

1 Eritrea 93.0 451,000 4,847,000 2 Burundi 40.0 408,000 10,199,000 3 Central African Republic 22.3 101,000 4,546,000 4 Mauritania 21.4 90,000 4,182,000 5 South Sudan 20.5 243,000 11,882,000 6 Somalia 15.5 216,000 13,908,000 Congo, Democratic Republic 7 13.7 1,045,000 76,197,000 of the 8 Sudan 12.0 465,000 38,648,000 9 Chad 12.0 168,000 14,009,000 10 Rwanda 11.6 134,000 11,630,000 11 Swaziland 8.8 12,000 1,319,000 12 Congo 8.0 40,000 4,996,000 13 Guinea 7.8 94,000 12,092,000 14 Libya 7.7 48,000 6,235,000 15 Nigeria 7.7 1,386,000 181,182,000 16 Uganda 7.6 304,000 40,145,000 70 Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 3 continued.

Estimated prevalence Estimated Regional (victims per 1,000 absolute number of rank Country population) victims Population

17 Madagascar 7.5 182,000 24,234,000 18 Malawi 7.5 131,000 17,574,000 19 Guinea-Bissau 7.5 13,000 1,771,000 20 Liberia 7.4 33,000 4,500,000 21 Angola 7.2 199,000 27,859,000 22 Djibouti 7.1 7,000 927,000 23 Kenya 6.9 328,000 47,236,000 24 Cameroon 6.9 157,000 22,835,000 25 Togo 6.8 50,000 7,417,000 26 Niger 6.7 133,000 19,897,000 27 Zimbabwe 6.7 105,000 15,777,000 28 Equatorial Guinea 6.4 7,000 1,175,000 29 Tanzania, United Republic of 6.2 336,000 53,880,000 30 Ethiopia 6.1 614,000 99,873,000 31 Côte d'Ivoire 5.9 137,000 23,108,000 32 Gambia 5.8 11,000 1,978,000 33 Zambia 5.7 92,000 16,101,000 34 Egypt 5.5 518,000 93,778,000 35 Benin 5.5 58,000 10,576,000 36 Mozambique 5.4 152,000 28,011,000 37 Sierra Leone 5.0 36,000 7,237,000 38 Ghana 4.8 133,000 27,583,000 39 Gabon 4.8 9,000 1,930,000 40 Burkina Faso 4.5 82,000 18,111,000 41 Lesotho 4.2 9,000 2,175,000 42 Cape Verde 4.1 2,000 533,000 43 Mali 3.6 62,000 17,468,000 44 Botswana 3.4 8,000 2,209,000 45 Namibia 3.3 8,000 2,426,000 46 Senegal 2.9 43,000 14,977,000 47 South Africa 2.8 155,000 55,291,000 48 Algeria 2.7 106,000 39,872,000 49 Morocco 2.4 85,000 34,803,000 50 Tunisia 2.2 25,000 11,274,000 51 Mauritius 1.0 1,000 1,259,000 Regional Findings 71

Vulnerability within Africa

FIGURE 4 Regional average vulnerability scores by dimension, Africa

Governance issues 60.8

Lack of basic needs 38.4

Inequality 43.1

Disenfranchised groups 44.5

E ects of conﬂict 35.7

Overall 62.0 weighted average

0 20 40 60 80 100

The prevalence estimates are consistent with findings from the vulnerability measures, which suggest the Africa region had the highest average vulnerability score (62 percent). The Africa region performed relatively poorly on the governance issues, lack of basic needs, and disenfranchised groups dimensions of the vulnerability model (Figure 5). These rankings reflect the challenges that continue to plague certain countries in this region in terms of resource allocation, effective governance, and acceptance of minority groups. The Central African Republic, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo had the highest levels of vulnerability, while Mauritius and Tunisia had the lowest levels of vulnerability in the region. 72 Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 4 Estimated vulnerability to modern slavery by country, Africa

Dis- Overall Governance Lack of enfranchised Effects of weighted Country issues basic needs Inequality groups conflict average

Central African Republic 85.4 50.2 62.7 58.0 81.6 100.0 South Sudan 75.7 51.1 62.9 56.1 85.7 94.7 Congo, Democratic Republic of 77.2 50.8 55.6 46.5 86.7 91.7 Somalia 80.6 56.8 49.6 22.7 88.4 89.5 Sudan 80.7 46.6 42.4 37.0 87.4 87.1 Chad 71.8 43.2 48.5 46.5 46.1 74.9 Nigeria 54.1 41.3 50.2 47.1 95.5 74.1 Libya 81.4 23.0 49.6 28.1 63.1 73.1 Burundi 72.4 42.6 42.1 48.1 41.7 72.9 Kenya 55.1 48.7 49.6 44.5 66.8 70.6 Guinea-Bissau 77.8 40.1 47.6 44.1 17.1 70.5 Cameroon 65.9 36.5 46.2 46.3 53.9 69.6 Eritrea 71.0 50.6 33.7 48.1 25.9 69.6 Congo 75.1 37.6 48.5 46.1 19.6 69.2 Zimbabwe 66.3 45.5 36.6 53.0 25.3 66.4 Guinea 68.3 32.4 54.7 46.4 28.6 66.3 Niger 61.9 41.2 37.0 45.0 50.4 65.6 Swaziland 69.9 50.0 39.4 38.8 11.7 64.8 Ethiopia 62.4 47.5 27.3 34.6 55.3 64.5 Malawi 55.4 51.5 40.9 61.5 19.1 63.4 Angola 60.2 43.4 48.2 48.5 19.8 62.3 Mauritania 67.3 33.7 39.3 50.5 22.3 62.0 Madagascar 54.4 46.8 51.0 56.8 17.3 62.0 Rwanda 56.6 40.8 40.0 55.7 34.0 61.7 Equatorial Guinea 68.4 40.8 36.7 48.5 10.1 61.7 Togo 70.0 31.5 45.3 42.3 17.1 61.3 Djibouti 66.8 38.0 33.9 48.1 21.3 61.2 Uganda 52.8 48.3 38.2 50.3 35.3 60.8 Tanzania, United Republic of 55.5 47.3 34.9 52.7 29.1 60.5 Egypt 61.6 18.4 44.2 52.8 51.1 60.4 Liberia 55.0 44.0 44.1 54.9 18.2 59.3 Gambia 66.8 28.1 41.8 44.1 20.8 58.4 Lesotho 53.8 50.7 44.6 41.9 18.6 58.3 Côte d'Ivoire 59.5 30.1 41.7 37.5 40.9 57.2 Mozambique 48.6 48.3 40.5 48.1 30.0 57.0 Mali 55.3 24.4 35.5 35.9 66.3 55.9 Zambia 45.8 54.4 44.9 49.1 13.1 55.2 Sierra Leone 50.9 46.1 41.2 48.1 18.1 55.2 South Africa 46.7 38.3 61.0 36.9 26.9 53.8 Burkina Faso 58.4 31.6 40.3 35.2 26.2 53.1 Ghana 52.6 29.1 42.0 53.7 21.6 52.2 Algeria 63.2 17.9 27.8 37.0 43.6 52.0 Gabon 56.5 27.1 36.6 47.5 12.4 49.1 Morocco 60.7 18.8 38.1 35.7 22.0 48.3 Namibia 44.6 38.4 55.9 38.8 10.4 48.1 Senegal 43.9 34.8 35.6 41.0 30.9 46.2 Regional Findings 73

Table 4 continued.

Dis- Overall Governance Lack of enfranchised Effects of weighted Country issues basic needs Inequality groups conflict average

Benin 51.1 28.8 39.9 35.3 15.8 45.0 Cape Verde 48.7 19.7 44.1 44.1 22.1 44.5 Botswana 43.3 37.9 37.3 37.6 9.7 42.1 Tunisia 47.2 15.4 34.8 31.9 33.7 39.2 Mauritius 25.5 17.7 33.6 31.1 12.2 21.2

Government responses within Africa

TABLE 5 Movements in government response rating for Africa 2016 to 2018

2016 Change in 2018 2016 Change in 2018 Country Rating rating Rating Country Rating rating Rating

South Africa B B Swaziland CCC CC Senegal B B Ghana CC CC Sierra Leone B B Malawi CC CC Nigeria B B Niger CC CC Tunisia CCC B Cameroon CCC CC Côte d’Ivoire CCC B Gabon CC CC Uganda B B Togo C CC Mozambique B B Cape Verde C CC Egypt CCC B Guinea C C Lesotho CCC CCC Zimbabwe CC C Congo, Democratic Benin B CCC C C Republic of Morocco CC CCC Guinea-Bissau CC C Kenya CC CCC Chad CC C Algeria CC CCC Somalia** C Ethiopia CCC CCC Mauritania CC C Burkina Faso CCC CCC Sudan CC C Djibouti CCC CCC Congo CC C Mauritius CCC CCC Burundi CC C Gambia CCC CCC Equatorial Guinea D D Rwanda CCC CCC Central African C D Namibia CCC CCC Republic Botswana CC CCC Eritrea D D Tanzania, United Libya** D CC CCC Republic of Seychelles*** Madagascar CC CCC Zambia CCC CCC *Countries that scored -1 on a negative indicator could not score above a BBB rating Liberia CCC CCC **Not rated in 2016 Global Slavery Index Mali CC CCC ***Included for the first time in 2018, therefore a rating is not provided. All data are available via the Global Slavery Index website Angola CC CC 74 Global Slavery Index 2018

While the Africa region has the lowest average regional There are also multiple regional bodies in Africa that have government response score, with a CC rating, there have been proactive in responding to modern slavery, which been significant improvements in specific countries and points to increasing opportunities to hold governments a trend to strengthen modern slavery legislation. Six to account. Despite this, limited resources and ongoing countries have passed strengthened trafficking legislation conflict continue to hinder more comprehensive responses since 2016, most recently in Côte d’Ivoire and Morocco. to modern slavery in the Africa region.

TABLE 6 Government response rating, milestone percentage, and total score by country, Africa

Support Criminal Address Supply Rating Country survivors justice Coordination risk chains TOTAL

B South Africa 53.7 61.7 43.8 57.1 0.0 47.4 B Senegal 49.6 43.9 56.3 54.8 0.0 47.1 B Sierra Leone 53.7 37.8 50.0 54.8 0.0 46.2 B Nigeria 58.9 53.3 50.0 47.6 0.0 45.8 B Tunisia 53.0 31.7 43.8 57.1 0.0 44.3 B Côte d'Ivoire 34.4 36.7 43.8 66.7 8.3 42.4 B Uganda 48.1 51.7 37.5 54.8 0.0 42.0 B Mozambique 57.6 49.4 31.3 42.9 0.0 40.7 B Egypt 37.6 30.6 62.5 64.3 0.0 40.1 CCC Lesotho 35.9 37.2 56.3 42.9 0.0 38.3 CCC Benin 30.6 31.7 56.3 52.4 0.0 37.7 CCC Morocco 6.5 56.7 31.3 71.4 0.0 36.5 CCC Kenya 35.7 38.9 37.5 59.5 0.0 36.5 CCC Algeria 29.4 47.2 37.5 45.2 0.0 36.3 CCC Ethiopia 27.8 51.1 56.3 47.6 0.0 36.3 CCC Burkina Faso 38.1 30.0 43.8 42.9 0.0 35.7 CCC Djibouti 30.4 42.8 31.3 47.6 0.0 35.3 CCC Mauritius 43.7 38.9 0.0 50.0 0.0 34.9 CCC Gambia 25.0 48.3 37.5 40.5 0.0 33.9 CCC Rwanda 36.9 41.7 43.8 54.8 0.0 33.6 CCC Namibia 34.1 27.8 18.8 54.8 0.0 33.3 CCC Botswana 32.2 45.6 37.5 45.2 0.0 33.2 CCC Tanzania, United Republic of 37.2 41.7 25.0 47.6 0.0 32.8 CCC Madagascar 38.7 52.8 18.8 50.0 0.0 31.8 CCC Zambia 33.3 34.4 25.0 40.5 0.0 31.8 CCC Liberia 28.0 26.7 31.3 50.0 0.0 31.7 CCC Mali 38.9 35.6 50.0 28.6 0.0 30.8 CC Angola 31.5 13.9 43.8 54.8 0.0 29.5 CC Swaziland 36.3 18.3 37.5 47.6 0.0 29.3 CC Ghana 24.8 33.3 37.5 40.5 8.3 27.6 CC Malawi 33.1 23.9 43.8 33.3 0.0 26.8 CC Niger 29.1 35.6 25.0 35.7 0.0 25.9 CC Cameroon 26.7 24.4 18.8 50.0 0.0 25.4 CC Gabon 27.8 11.7 31.3 33.3 0.0 24.2 CC Togo 28.7 21.1 31.3 21.4 0.0 23.6 CC Cape Verde 23.5 16.1 25.0 33.3 0.0 22.9 C Guinea 8.7 10.6 37.5 50.0 0.0 19.3 C Zimbabwe 11.7 17.2 43.8 35.7 0.0 19.0 Congo, Democratic Republic C 25.9 24.4 37.5 14.3 0.0 18.9 of the Regional Findings 75

Table 6 continued.

Support Criminal Address Supply Rating Country survivors justice Coordination risk chains TOTAL

C Guinea-Bissau 7.4 31.1 31.3 21.4 0.0 18.9 C Chad 16.7 13.9 12.5 40.5 0.0 16.7 C Somalia 8.1 20.6 25.0 35.7 0.0 16.0 C Mauritania 6.5 25.0 18.8 35.7 0.0 15.5 C Sudan 2.8 26.7 25.0 33.3 0.0 14.9 C Congo 8.3 6.7 25.0 42.9 0.0 14.8 C Burundi 22.2 11.1 12.5 26.2 0.0 10.7 D Equatorial Guinea 3.7 12.2 12.5 26.2 0.0 8.6 D Central African Republic -3.7 0.6 12.5 21.4 0.0 2.5 D Eritrea 0.0 -1.1 0.0 21.4 0.0 -2.0 D Libya 0.0 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.5

No 3 rating Seychelles

Migrants are seen at a detention centre in Zawiyah, 45 kilometres west of the Libyan capital Tripoli, in June, 2017. The Libyan coastguard has rescued more than 900 African and Asian migrants attempting to reach Europe, a navy spokesman said. These detention centres have been used as staging posts for human trafficking. Photo credit: Taha Jawashi/AFP/Getty Images 76 Global Slavery Index 2018

AMERICAS REGION HIGHLIGHTS

Canada

United States

Cuba Jamaica Haiti Dominican Republic

Barbados Mexico

Trinidad Guatemala And Tobago

El Salvador Venezuela

Honduras Guyana

Nicaragua Costa Rica Suriname

Panama Peru Brazil Ecuador Bolivia

Colombia Paraguay

Chile Argentina Uruguay

high low

Estimated Number of Forced labour Average Vulnerability Score People in Modern Slavery percentage 66% 1,950,000 Regional Proportion Forced marriage 41/100 of Global Estimate percentage 34% 5%

Average Government Response Score AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC CC C D Regional Findings 77

With 35 countries and 13 percent of the world’s population, the Americas is home to geographically large countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Canada, and the United States and features wide socio-economic differences within each country and across the region. This regional study summarises a longer set of findings, which can be found in the Global Slavery Index: Americas Report.

Prevalence within the Americas

On any given day in 2016, an estimated 1.9 million men, The region also accounted for four percent of all victims of women, and children were living in modern slavery in the forced sexual exploitation worldwide. Americas. This region had a prevalence of 1.9 people in Within the region, Venezuela, Haiti, and the Dominican modern slavery for every 1,000 people in the region. Republic were the countries with the highest prevalence When considering the forms of modern slavery, the rate of of modern slavery; however, the United States, Brazil, and forced labour (1.3 victims per 1,000 people) was higher than Mexico had the highest absolute numbers and accounted the rate of forced marriage (0.7 victims per 1,000). A little for over half (57 percent) of the victims in the region. over a third of victims of forced labour exploitation were These regional figures, while important, should be held in debt bondage (37.9 percent), with similar proportions interpreted cautiously given the gaps and limitations of of men and women in the region trapped through debt. data in key regions. For example, there are no surveys conducted in North America.

TABLE 7 Estimated prevalence of modern slavery by country, Americas

Estimated prevalence Regional (victims per 1,000 Estimated absolute rank Country population) number of victims Population

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic 1 5.6 174,000 31,155,000 of 2 Haiti 5.6 59,000 10,711,000 3 Dominican Republic 4.0 42,000 10,528,000 4 Cuba 3.8 43,000 11,461,000 5 Honduras 3.4 30,000 8,961,000 6 Trinidad and Tobago 3.0 4,000 1,360,000 7 Guatemala 2.9 47,000 16,252,000 8 Nicaragua 2.9 18,000 6,082,000 9 Barbados 2.7 1,000 284,000 10 Colombia 2.7 131,000 48,229,000 11 Mexico 2.7 341,000 125,891,000 12 Guyana 2.6 2,000 769,000 13 Jamaica 2.6 7,000 2,872,000 14 Peru 2.6 80,000 31,377,000 15 El Salvador 2.5 16,000 6,312,000 16 Ecuador 2.4 39,000 16,144,000 17 Suriname 2.3 1,000 553,000 78 Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 7 continued. Estimated prevalence Regional (victims per 1,000 Estimated absolute rank Country population) number of victims Population

18 Bolivia, Plurinational State of 2.1 23,000 10,725,000 19 Panama 2.1 8,000 3,969,000 20 Brazil 1.8 369,000 205,962,000 21 Paraguay 1.6 11,000 6,639,000 22 Argentina 1.3 55,000 43,418,000 23 United States 1.3 403,000 319,929,000 24 Costa Rica 1.3 6,000 4,808,000 25 Uruguay 1.0 4,000 3,432,000 26 Chile 0.8 14,000 17,763,000 27 Canada 0.5 17,000 35,950,000

Vulnerability within the Americas

FIGURE 5 Regional average vulnerability scores by dimension, Americas

Governance issues 44.3

Lack of basic needs 21.4

Inequality 49.9

Disenfranchised groups 33.5

E ects of conﬂict 22.9

Overall 41.4 weighted average

0 20 40 60 80 100

The average vulnerability score in the Americas (41 percent) suggests a higher risk of modern slavery in this region than is evident in the prevalence data. The Americas region performed relatively well on the dimensions that measure impact of conflict and acceptance of minority groups, with a better average score than other regions, but relatively poorly on the governance and the inequality dimensions, which can reflect increasing income inequality, significant problems associated with violent crime, and lower confidence in judicial systems (Figure 5). Across all dimensions of vulnerability, scores in the region ranged from a high of 70 percent in Haiti to a low of 10 percent in Canada. Regional Findings 79

TABLE 8 Estimated vulnerability to modern slavery by country, Americas

Dis- Overall Governance Lack of basic enfranchised Effects of weighted Country issues needs Inequality groups conflict average

Haiti 62.4 49.7 54.1 56.8 20.1 69.6 Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic 65.1 19.7 60.4 34.3 27.8 57.9 of Mexico 47.3 23.7 59.0 37.8 68.8 57.3 Honduras 55.5 26.5 58.9 36.5 32.7 55.5 Cuba 60.2 25.9 37.6 47.8 17.3 52.4 Guatemala 51.0 25.8 58.1 40.9 27.4 52.1 Colombia 45.7 19.2 56.4 32.6 63.5 51.6 El Salvador 50.5 23.0 59.8 43.6 22.7 50.7 Guyana 49.5 25.6 60.4 28.1 12.4 45.4 Peru 44.3 24.7 48.0 38.2 27.5 44.3 Jamaica 39.5 24.2 62.2 47.8 15.5 44.2 Bolivia, Plurinational State of 50.9 25.8 46.3 32.1 13.4 44.1 Nicaragua 48.2 24.5 43.3 35.3 22.8 43.9 Dominican Republic 42.5 28.7 46.1 38.8 21.8 43.1 Suriname 55.5 10.7 50.8 28.1 16.3 42.1 Barbados 47.6 14.3 52.5 47.8 9.2 41.9 Ecuador 46.0 23.0 46.4 29.1 23.0 41.3 Paraguay 38.3 21.0 64.7 32.7 22.7 40.9 Trinidad and Tobago 38.6 13.0 62.4 47.8 13.7 39.1 Panama 44.2 21.0 42.6 33.1 9.4 36.4 Brazil 43.1 13.6 56.2 19.8 24.0 36.4 Argentina 39.3 11.4 45.0 23.6 13.4 28.9 Costa Rica 35.2 16.7 40.7 29.4 12.2 28.4 Chile 28.5 13.8 50.0 23.5 20.3 25.6 Uruguay 31.9 13.5 34.3 15.4 9.5 19.7 United States 18.3 18.2 30.3 15.6 28.6 15.9 Canada 16.6 20.7 20.1 9.2 21.5 10.2 80 Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 9 Government responses Movements in the rating for the Americas 2016 to 2018 within the Americas 2016 Change 2018 Country Rating in rating Rating Governments in the Americas have taken strong steps to respond to modern slavery, with improvements in victim United States BBB* BBB* identification mechanisms and support services. The Argentina BB BBB Americas scores an average B rating, with countries such as Chile, Argentina, and Peru strengthening their national Chile B BBB referral mechanisms and guidelines for identifying victims in Canada BB BB recent years. Certain countries within the Americas, namely Jamaica BB BB the US and Brazil, also lead the way globally on engaging Dominican with business. Brazil has been engaging with business to BB BB Republic prevent trabalho escravo (slave labour) since 2005 with the launch of its National Pact for the Eradication of Slave Brazil BB BB Labour, a multi-stakeholder initiative to engage national Peru B BB and international companies to maintain supply chains free Mexico BB BB from slave labour. Uruguay B BB Costa Rica BB BB Trinidad and CCC B Tobago Ecuador B B Nicaragua B B Guatemala B B Panama CCC B Bolivia, Plurinational State CCC B of Colombia B B Paraguay B B Haiti CCC CCC Barbados CCC CCC El Salvador CCC CCC Honduras CCC CCC Guyana CCC CCC Venezuela, Bolivarian CC CC Republic of Suriname CC CC Cuba CC CC Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines***

*Countries that scored -1 on a negative indicator could not score above a BBB rating **Not rated in 2016 Global Slavery Index ***Included for the first time in 2018, therefore a rating is not provided. All data are still available via the Global Slavery Index website Regional Findings 81

TABLE 10 Government response rating, milestone percentage, and total score by country, Americas

Support Criminal Address Supply Rating Country survivors justice Coordination risk chains TOTAL

BBB* United States 92.6 75.6 56.3 66.7 65.0 71.7 BBB Argentina 70.0 70.6 62.5 78.6 0.0 62.6 BBB Chile 76.5 53.9 50.0 76.2 0.0 62.3 BB Canada 52.4 72.8 75.0 61.9 0.0 58.6 BB Jamaica 50.6 72.8 75.0 64.3 0.0 58.6 BB Dominican Republic 69.1 78.3 37.5 69.0 0.0 58.0 BB Brazil 38.9 47.8 87.5 73.8 26.7 55.6 BB Peru 75.9 42.2 62.5 54.8 0.0 52.5 BB Mexico 53.7 62.8 56.3 69.0 0.0 52.4 BB Uruguay 40.6 49.4 50.0 78.6 0.0 50.4 BB Costa Rica 53.7 41.7 62.5 59.5 0.0 50.0 B Trinidad and Tobago 67.2 50.0 31.3 66.7 0.0 49.9 B Ecuador 61.1 55.6 37.5 52.4 0.0 46.4 B Nicaragua 34.4 70.0 25.0 66.7 0.0 46.3 B Guatemala 42.2 25.6 62.5 69.0 0.0 45.2 B Panama 32.6 60.0 31.3 78.6 0.0 43.9 B Bolivia, Plurinational State of 21.3 43.9 62.5 61.9 8.3 41.3 B Colombia 40.4 42.2 62.5 69.0 0.0 41.1 B Paraguay 26.1 56.7 37.5 71.4 10.0 40.9 CCC Haiti 49.6 42.8 18.8 47.6 0.0 39.7 CCC Barbados 53.3 26.1 37.5 45.2 0.0 39.4 CCC El Salvador 31.7 39.4 43.8 64.3 0.0 37.4 CCC Honduras 27.6 25.6 62.5 54.8 0.0 37.0 CCC Guyana 33.1 44.4 25.0 45.2 0.0 31.5 Venezuela, Bolivarian CC 23.3 43.9 12.5 52.4 0.0 28.2 Republic of CC Suriname 24.3 5.6 31.3 54.8 0.0 27.1 CC Cuba 13.0 15.0 18.8 42.9 0.0 20.8 No Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, rating Saint Vincent and the Grenadines4

*Indicates where a country could not score above a BBB. These countries have received a negative rating for policies that hinder their response to modern slavery. 82 Global Slavery Index 2018

ARAB STATES REGION HIGHLIGHTS

Syria Lebanon

Iraq Bahrain

Jordan Kuwait

Qatar

United Arab Emirates Saudi Arabia

Oman

Yemen

high low

Estimated Number of Forced labour Average Vulnerability Score People in Modern Slavery percentage 67% 520,000 Regional Proportion Forced marriage 57/100 of Global Estimate percentage 33% 1%

Average Government Response Score AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC CC C D Regional Findings 83

The Arab States region covers 11 countries including Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, and is home to two percent of the world’s population. The region is diverse, spanning the wealthier Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC countries) and countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, which are dealing with the impact of ongoing conflict in Syria. This regional study summarises a longer set of findings, which can be found in the Global Slavery Index: Arab States Report.

Prevalence within the Arab States

On any given day in 2016, an estimated 520,000 men, in this region. Only two national surveys were conducted women, and children were living in modern slavery in the in the Arab States region (Lebanon and Jordan), both Arab States. This is a prevalence of 3.3 victims per 1,000 conducted in Arabic, and none were conducted in the Gulf persons. When considering the forms of modern slavery, Cooperation Council (GCC) states, despite the incidence of the largest share of those in modern slavery were victims forced labour reported by various sources in such sectors of forced labour (2.2 victims per 1,000 people), while the as domestic work and construction in the GCC countries. rate of forced marriage was 1.1 victims per 1,000 people. The regional estimates for the Arab States were therefore built mainly from respondents who were interviewed in their Over half of all victims of forced labour exploitation country of residence and reported about their forced labour (51 percent) were held in debt bondage and this affected a situation while working in that region. Further, measurement greater share of female victims than male victims. The Arab of forced marriage among residents of countries within States accounted for one percent of victims of forced sexual the region is particularly problematic where there are no exploitation globally. surveys. Taken together, these gaps point to the likelihood Within the region, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen had both the of a significant underestimation of the extent of modern highest prevalence of modern slavery and the highest slavery in this region. absolute number of victims, accounting for 76 percent of Similarly, as it is typically not possible to survey in countries the victims in the region. that are experiencing profound and current conflict, such These regional figures, while important, should be as Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, data from these states are likely interpreted cautiously given the gaps and limitations of data to understate the problem.5

TABLE 11 Estimated prevalence of modern slavery by country, Arab States6

Estimated prevalence Regional (victims per 1,000 Estimated absolute rank Country population) number of victims Population

1 Syrian Arab Republic* 7.3 136,000 18,735,000 2 Iraq* 4.8 174,000 36,116,000 3 Yemen* 3.1 85,000 26,916,000 4 Oman* 2.1 9,000 4,200,000 5 Saudi Arabia* 1.9 61,000 31,557,000 6 Bahrain* 1.9 3,000 1,372,000 7 Jordan* 1.8 17,000 9,159,000 8 Lebanon* 1.7 10,000 5,851,000 9 United Arab Emirates* 1.7 15,000 9,154,000 10 Qatar* 1.5 4,000 2,482,000 11 Kuwait* 1.5 6,000 3,936,000

*Substantial gaps in data exist for the Arab States region and Gulf countries in particular. These gaps point to a significant underestimate of the extent of modern slavery in this region. As a result, the country-level estimates presented here are considered very conservative and should be interpreted cautiously. 84 Global Slavery Index 2018

Vulnerability within the Arab States

FIGURE 6 Regional average vulnerability scores by dimension, Arab States

Governance issues 64.8

Lack of basic needs 24.6

Inequality 41.2

Disenfranchised groups 33.4

E ects of conﬂict 40.0

Overall 57.2 weighted average

0 20 40 60 80 100

A regional analysis of our vulnerability measures suggests countries such as Yemen, Syria, and Iraq scoring much higher risk of modern slavery in the Arab States than is higher on this dimension than other countries in the region. evident in the prevalence data, with the Arab States rating The regional average on measures of inequality points to as the second most vulnerable region (57 percent). The slightly higher vulnerability than the global average on this Arab States region performed relatively well on the lack of dimension (41 percent cf 38 percent) and, again, there is a basic needs dimension of the vulnerability model, but great deal of diversity within the region, with scores ranging relatively poorly on the governance and effects of conflict from a low of 25 percent in UAE to a high of 65 percent in dimensions (Figure 6). The regional score in the conflict Iraq. Across all dimensions of vulnerability, the highest score dimension hides diversity within the region, with some was found in Syria (92 percent).

TABLE 12 Estimated vulnerability to modern slavery by country, Arab States

Dis- Overall Governance Lack of enfranchised Effects of weighted Country issues basic needs Inequality groups conflict average

Syrian Arab Republic 85.6 36.9 62.5 33.4 95.4 92.3 Yemen 79.2 43.1 49.2 53.0 69.9 86.4 Iraq 72.6 34.9 65.2 46.6 89.4 85.7 Lebanon 59.1 22.6 48.1 44.8 47.8 58.9 Oman 68.7 20.5 37.8 33.4 6.4 50.1 Jordan 57.9 15.7 41.8 47.4 26.2 49.9 Bahrain 63.0 25.8 34.5 24.0 25.4 49.6 Saudi Arabia 63.2 21.9 30.1 14.2 32.2 46.3 Kuwait 59.7 20.1 29.3 29.3 28.5 45.9 Qatar 56.3 13.8 29.5 33.4 7.0 37.7 United Arab Emirates 47.9 15.1 24.7 7.8 11.9 26.8 Regional Findings 85

TABLE 13 Government responses within Movements in government response rating for the the Arab States Arab States 2016 to 2018

The Arab States region scores an average CCC rating on 2016 Change in 2018 government response. This is despite its relatively high Country Rating rating Rating GDP (PPP) per capita in the GCC countries. As a wealthy United Arab B B subregion, the GCC States average CCC rating reveals Emirates limited protections for migrant populations most vulnerable Jordan B CCC to modern slavery. Unlike Asia Pacific (also averaging CCC), Qatar CCC CCC the more stable governments in this region which might be Bahrain CCC CCC expected to act, have taken very few steps to protect the Oman CCC CCC rights and safety of the millions of migrant workers who make up their construction and domestic work sectors. Lebanon CCC CCC Other countries in the region, such as Jordan and Lebanon, Saudi Arabia CC CC have put in place some protections for migrant populations, Kuwait CC CC but struggle to deal with ongoing conflict in Syria and Yemen, and the flow of people fleeing these crises.

TABLE 14 Government response rating, milestone percentage, and total score by country, Arab States

Support Criminal Supply Rating Country survivors justice Coordination Address risk chains TOTAL

B United Arab Emirates 63.0 41.1 56.3 42.9 0.0 47.8 CCC Jordan 48.1 42.8 31.3 38.1 0.0 38.6 CCC Qatar 53.0 31.7 31.3 42.9 0.0 35.4 CCC Bahrain 55.2 37.2 18.8 31.0 0.0 32.6 CCC Oman 32.4 22.8 12.5 59.5 0.0 32.0 CCC Lebanon 33.9 30.0 31.3 38.1 0.0 31.3 CC Saudi Arabia 32.4 42.8 37.5 26.2 0.0 27.9 CC Kuwait 28.7 33.9 25.0 45.2 0.0 27.8 86 Global Slavery Index 2018

ASIA & THE PACIFIC REGION HIGHLIGHTS

Bangladesh North Korea South Korea Japan

Afghanistan Nepal

Mongolia

Hong Kong, China

China Taiwan, China Iran

Lao PDR

India Vietnam

Cambodia Pakistan

Philippines Myanmar

Sri Lanka

Thailand Malaysia Singapore

Papua New Guinea Indonesia

Australia Brunei

New Zealand Timor-Leste

high low

Estimated Number of Forced labour Average Vulnerability Score People in Modern Slavery percentage 66% 24,990,000 Regional Proportion Forced marriage 46/100 of Global Estimate percentage 34% 62%

Average Government Response Score AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC CC C D Regional Findings 87

With 36 countries and 56 percent of the world’s population, the Asia and the Pacific is the world’s largest region and is broadly diverse in terms of ethnicity, culture, religion, and development. This regional study summarises a longer set of findings, which can be found in the Global Slavery Index: Asia and the Pacific Report.

Prevalence with in Asia and the Pacific

On any given day in 2016, an estimated 24.9 million men, forced labour exploitation, and 42 percent of all those in women, and children were living in modern slavery in forced marriages. Asia and the Pacific. The region had the second highest Within the region, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Pakistan prevalence of modern slavery in the world with 6.1 per were the countries with the highest prevalence of modern 1,000 people. slavery. India, China, and Pakistan had the highest absolute When considering forms of modern slavery, the Asia and number of people living in modern slavery and accounted Pacific region had a high prevalence of forced labour (4.0 for 60 percent of the victims in the region. per 1,000 people) compared to other regions. The rate of These regional figures, while important, should be interpreted forced marriage was two victims per 1,000 people. cautiously given the gaps and limitations of data in key regions Over half of all victims of forced labour exploitation (55 and subregions. For example, only one national survey was percent) were held in debt bondage and this affected conducted in East Asia (Mongolia), and it is not possible to male victims more than female victims. The Asia and the survey in areas of countries that are experiencing profound Pacific region had the highest number of victims across and current conflict, such as within parts of Pakistan. The lack all forms of modern slavery, accounting for 73 percent of of data from these regions experiencing conflict means that victims of forced sexual exploitation, 68 percent of those modern slavery estimates for conflict-affected countries are forced to work by state authorities, 64 percent of those in likely to understate the problem.7

TABLE 15 Estimated prevalence of modern slavery by country, Asia and the Pacific

Estimated prevalence Regional (victims per 1,000 Estimated absolute rank Country population) number of victims Population

Korea, Democratic People's 1 104.6 2,640,000 25,244,000 Republic of (North Korea)* 2 Afghanistan 22.2 749,000 33,736,000 3 Pakistan 16.8 3,186,000 189,381,000 4 Cambodia 16.8 261,000 15,518,000 5 Iran, Islamic Republic of 16.2 1,289,000 79,360,000 6 Mongolia 12.3 37,000 2,977,000 7 Myanmar 11.0 575,000 52,404,000 8 Brunei Darussalam 10.9 5,000 418,000 9 Papua New Guinea 10.3 81,000 7,920,000 Lao People's Democratic 10 9.4 62,000 6,664,000 Republic 11 Thailand 8.9 610,000 68,658,000 12 Philippines 7.7 784,000 101,716,000 13 Timor-Leste 7.7 10,000 1,241,000 88 Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 15 continued.

Estimated prevalence Regional (victims per 1,000 Estimated absolute rank Country population) number of victims Population

14 Malaysia 6.9 212,000 30,723,000 15 India 6.1 7,989,000 1,309,054,000 16 Nepal 6.0 171,000 28,656,000 17 Indonesia 4.7 1,220,000 258,162,000 18 Viet Nam 4.5 421,000 93,572,000 19 Bangladesh 3.7 592,000 161,201,000 20 Singapore* 3.4 19,000 5,535,000 21 China* 2.8 3,864,000 1,397,029,000 22 Sri Lanka 2.1 44,000 20,714,000 23 Korea, Republic of (South Korea)* 1.9 99,000 50,594,000 24 Hong Kong, China* 1.4 10,000 7,246,000 25 Australia 0.6 15,000 23,800,000 26 New Zealand 0.6 3,000 4,615,000 27 Taiwan, China* 0.5 12,000 23,486,000 28 Japan* 0.3 37,000 127,975,000

*Substantial gaps in data exist for the Central and East Asia subregions where, with the exception of Mongolia, surveys cannot be conducted for reasons such as (i) survey is only delivered face-to-face, (ii) survey is delivered only in the main language which many migrant workers do not speak, or (iii) national authorities would not, or were unlikely to, consent to the module on modern slavery. Unlike several countries in Western Europe where no surveys were conducted, none of the countries in these subregions were identified as sites of exploitation by respondents in the 48 countries where surveys were implemented

Vulnerability within Asia and the Pacific

FIGURE 7 Regional average vulnerability scores by dimension, Asia and the Pacific

Governance issues 49.3

Lack of basic needs 31.1

Inequality 32.3

Disenfranchised groups 34.0

Eects of conﬂict 32.4

Overall 46.1 weighted average

0 20 40 60 80 100

Overall, the Asia and the Pacific region performed relatively relatively poorly on the disenfranchised groups dimension, well on the conflict dimension of the vulnerability model. which perhaps reflects discrimination of individuals on Nonetheless, countries with highest prevalence in the region the basis of migration status, race, ethnicity, and/or sexual include North Korea, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. North Korea orientation (Figure 7). A key flash point in the region has been has well documented state-imposed forced labour, and the mass displacement, abductions, sexual violence, and Afghanistan and Pakistan are both impacted by protracted murders committed against the Rohingya population from and ongoing conflict. The Asia and the Pacific region scored Myanmar.8 International organisations have already warned Regional Findings 89

of the likelihood of sexual enslavement and human trafficking Afghanistan had the highest levels of vulnerability (94 percent) occurring as a result of this crisis.9 On overall vulnerability, and New Zealand the lowest (two percent).

TABLE 16 Estimated vulnerability to modern slavery by country, Asia and the Pacific

Dis- Overall Governance Lack of enfranchised Effects of weighted Country Name issues basic needs Inequality groups conflict average

Afghanistan 81.0 41.3 64.7 46.0 92.6 93.9 Pakistan 56.8 36.2 45.9 55.3 92.8 74.1 Korea, Democratic People's 87.6 52.0 30.3 32.4 12.3 73.3 Republic of (North Korea) Myanmar 58.1 43.8 26.1 46.0 70.2 65.9 Cambodia 66.3 38.5 41.6 56.7 14.8 63.5 Iran, Islamic Republic of 74.6 25.5 35.8 37.3 39.5 63.3 Papua New Guinea 64.8 63.3 46.2 9.5 13.3 61.9 Philippines 50.5 35.3 45.7 36.4 69.3 60.2 Lao People's Democratic 70.7 35.1 26.4 41.2 13.9 57.5 Republic India 46.2 29.8 32.4 41.1 80.0 55.5 Timor-Leste 58.4 41.9 37.2 41.2 3.9 52.8 Thailand 50.9 21.8 35.3 45.1 51.9 51.1 China 61.4 20.5 26.9 32.4 44.2 50.6 Indonesia 43.7 38.0 35.8 53.3 32.2 50.5 Bangladesh 54.1 38.4 25.7 20.9 45.3 50.0 Brunei Darussalam 53.5 30.9 31.7 41.2 18.2 47.2 Nepal 52.0 35.6 32.2 8.7 34.7 44.1 Mongolia 40.9 36.8 35.1 47.1 18.1 43.5 Sri Lanka 44.1 27.0 33.5 34.9 35.9 42.5 Vietnam 53.6 23.2 28.1 32.5 18.5 41.5 Malaysia 36.2 28.4 39.6 41.2 27.8 39.2 Korea, Republic of 33.9 29.4 25.7 33.8 13.4 29.8 (South Korea) Hong Kong, China 39.3 9.6 24.7 28.4 15.0 24.7 Taiwan, China 24.5 24.7 40.6 21.1 1.4 20.3 Japan 21.5 13.1 15.5 31.9 17.8 13.8 Singapore 30.8 16.3 5.0 18.7 9.0 13.4 Australia 11.9 15.7 20.7 12.0 13.0 4.3 New Zealand 12.2 18.4 16.2 7.0 7.0 1.9 90 Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 17 Government responses Movements in government response rating for Asia within Asia and the Pacific and the Pacific 2016 to 2018 2016 Change 2018 Asia and the Pacific scored an average CCC rating on Country Rating in rating Rating government response. While this is the same overall rating as given to the Arab States (also averaging CCC), Australia BBB BBB Asia and the Pacific has shown a trend toward improving New Zealand BB BB the safety nets that help to prevent modern slavery for specific groups or sectors. For example, recognising that Philippines BB BB migrant workers from this region can become vulnerable, Indonesia B BB there have been attempts to strengthen pre-departure and Thailand B B on-arrival protection for domestic and construction workers from South Asia working in the Arab States, including the Vietnam B B use of bilateral labour agreements that include protections. India B B Certain sectors, such as the Southeast Asian fishing Bangladesh B B industry, have also been in the spotlight in recent years, and while the Thai and Indonesian governments in particular Nepal B CCC have taken steps to respond to the issue, more remains to Malaysia CCC CCC be done to reduce the endemic abuse that occurs in the Taiwan, China CCC CCC fishing industry. Cambodia CCC CCC Sri Lanka B CCC Japan CCC CCC Lao People’s Democratic CCC CCC Republic Singapore CC CCC Myanmar CCC CCC Mongolia CCC CCC Timor-Leste CC CC Korea, Democratic People’s Republic CC CC of (North Korea) China CCC CC Hong Kong, China C CC Brunei Darussalam C CC Papua New Guinea C C Pakistan CCC C Iran, Islamic D D Republic of Korea, Republic of D D (South Korea) Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu***

*Countries that scored -1 on a negative indicator could not score above a BBB rating **Not rated in 2016 Global Slavery Index ***Included for the first time in 2018, therefore a rating is not provided. All data are available via the Global Slavery Index website Regional Findings 91

TABLE 18 Government response rating, milestone percentage, and total score by country, Asia and the Pacific

Support Criminal Address Supply Rating Country survivors justice Coordination risk chains TOTAL

BBB Australia 69.6 75.0 56.3 69.0 0.0 63.8 BB New Zealand 53.7 47.8 43.8 95.2 0.0 57.6 BB Philippines 51.5 69.4 50.0 69.0 0.0 55.8 BB Indonesia 47.8 60.0 50.0 61.9 0.0 50.8 B Thailand 46.3 51.7 56.3 73.8 0.0 48.9 B Vietnam 62.2 45.0 62.5 66.7 0.0 48.1 B India 46.3 53.3 56.3 45.2 0.0 45.7 B Bangladesh 43.1 63.3 68.8 42.9 0.0 44.4 CCC Nepal 35.2 41.7 50.0 59.5 0.0 38.7 CCC Malaysia 40.0 53.9 56.3 38.1 0.0 38.4 CCC Taiwan, China 46.9 38.7 25.0 42.9 8.3 38.2 CCC Cambodia 40.4 46.7 43.8 33.3 0.0 37.6 CCC Sri Lanka 26.7 42.8 25.0 78.6 0.0 37.4 CCC Japan 43.5 44.4 37.5 45.2 0.0 36.6 Lao People's Democratic CCC 38.9 36.7 50.0 40.5 0.0 34.0 Republic CCC Singapore 40.0 22.2 31.3 42.9 0.0 32.8 CCC Myanmar 58.0 18.3 43.8 42.9 0.0 32.4 CCC Mongolia 27.8 33.3 31.3 54.8 0.0 30.7 CC Timor-Leste 33.1 16.7 25.0 42.9 0.0 28.5 Korea, Republic of CC 35.9 27.8 12.5 33.3 0.0 27.6 (South Korea) CC China 23.5 29.4 43.8 52.4 18.3 27.4 CC Hong Kong, China 30.2 10.0 12.5 31.0 0.0 21.4 CC Brunei Darussalam 17.8 19.4 0.0 42.9 0.0 20.6 C Papua New Guinea 26.5 30.6 6.3 26.2 0.0 18.9 C Pakistan 21.5 15.6 12.5 40.5 0.0 18.6 D Iran, Islamic Republic of 7.4 9.4 0.0 23.8 0.0 6.8 Korea, Democratic People's D 0.0 -6.7 12.5 4.8 0.0 -5.6 Republic of (North Korea) No Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu10 rating 92 Global Slavery Index 2018

EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA REGION HIGHLIGHTS

Slovakia Norway Sweden Hungary Poland Finland Lithuania Estonia Latvia Belarus

Czech Republic

Austria Moldova Slovenia

Germany

Netherlands

Belgium

Iceland

United Kingdom

Luxembourg Russia

Ireland

Switzerland

France Ukraine Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Italy Kyrgyzstan Spain Turkey Turkmenistan Portugal Tajikstan Georgia Azerbaijan Armenia Romania Bulgaria Serbia Croatia Bosnia & Herzegovina Montenegro Albania Macedonia Israel Cyprus Greece Kosovo

high low

Estimated Number of Forced labour Average Vulnerability Score People in Modern Slavery percentage 91% 3,590,000 Regional Proportion Forced marriage 28/100 of Global Estimate percentage 9% 9%

Average Government Response Score AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC CC C D Regional Findings 93

Europe and Central Asia covers 51 countries across the subregions of Central and Western Asia, Eastern Europe and Northern, Southern, and Western Europe. Covering 12.4 percent of the world’s population, within these subregions there is broad variation and diversity in terms of people, culture, history, and levels of development. This regional study summarises a longer set of findings, which can be found in the Global Slavery Index: Europe and Central Asia Report.

Prevalence within Europe and Central Asia

On any given day in 2016, an estimated 3.6 million men, The region also accounted for 14 percent of forced sexual women, and children were living in modern slavery in exploitation worldwide. Europe and Central Asia. This region had a prevalence Within the region, Turkmenistan, Belarus, and Macedonia of 3.9 people in modern slavery for every 1,000 people in are the countries with the highest prevalence of modern the region. slavery, while Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine have the highest When considering the forms of modern slavery, the rate absolute number and account for over one-third (39 of forced labour (3.6 per 1,000 people) was higher than percent) of the victims in the region. the rate of forced marriage (0.4 per 1,000 people). The These regional figures, while important, should be prevalence of forced marriage was the lowest of all the interpreted cautiously given the gaps and limitations of data world’s regions. A little over a third of victims of forced in key regions. For example, there are numerous reports labour exploitation were held in debt bondage (36 percent), of forced marriages in Central Asia but few surveys on the with a higher proportion of men trapped through debt. issue have been conducted there.11 This contributes to lower rates of forced marriage than may be the case in this region.

TABLE 19 Estimated prevalence of modern slavery by country, Europe and Central Asia

Estimated prevalence Regional (victims per Estimated absolute rank Country 1,000 population) number of victims Population

1 Turkmenistan* 11.2 62,000 5,565,000 2 Belarus 10.9 103,000 9,486,000 Macedonia, the former Yugoslav 3 8.7 18,000 2,079,000 Republic of 4 Greece 7.9 89,000 11,218,000 5 Albania 6.9 20,000 2,923,000 6 Turkey 6.5 509,000 78,271,000 7 Ukraine 6.4 286,000 44,658,000 8 Croatia 6.0 25,000 4,236,000 9 Montenegro 5.9 4,000 628,000 10 Lithuania 5.8 17,000 2,932,000 11 Russia 5.5 794,000 143,888,000 12 Moldova, Republic of 5.5 22,000 4,066,000 13 Armenia 5.3 16,000 2,917,000 14 Uzbekistan* 5.2 160,000 30,976,000 94 Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 19 continued.

Estimated prevalence Regional (victims per Estimated absolute rank Country 1,000 population) number of victims Population

15 Tajikistan* 4.5 39,000 8,549,000 16 Bulgaria 4.5 32,000 7,177,000 17 Azerbaijan* 4.5 43,000 9,617,000 18 Georgia 4.3 17,000 3,952,000 19 Romania 4.3 86,000 19,877,000 20 Cyprus 4.2 5,000 1,161,000 21 Kazakhstan* 4.2 75,000 17,750,000 22 Kyrgyzstan* 4.1 24,000 5,865,000 23 Kosovo 4.0 8,000 1,905,000 24 Latvia 3.9 8,000 1,993,000 25 Israel 3.9 31,000 8,065,000 26 Hungary 3.7 36,000 9,784,000 27 Estonia 3.6 5,000 1,315,000 28 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.4 12,000 3,536,000 29 Poland 3.4 128,000 38,265,000 30 Serbia 3.3 30,000 8,851,000 31 Slovakia 2.9 16,000 5,439,000 32 Czech Republic 2.9 31,000 10,604,000 33 Portugal 2.5 26,000 10,418,000 34 Italy 2.4 145,000 59,504,000 35 Spain 2.3 105,000 46,398,000 36 Slovenia 2.2 5,000 2,075,000 37 Iceland 2.1 <1,000 330,000 38 United Kingdom 2.1 136,000 65,397,000 39 Germany 2.0 167,000 81,708,000 40 Belgium 2.0 23,000 11,288,000 41 France 2.0 129,000 64,457,000 42 Norway 1.8 9,000 5,200,000 43 Netherlands 1.8 30,000 16,938,000 44 Austria 1.7 15,000 8,679,000 45 Switzerland 1.7 14,000 8,320,000 46 Ireland 1.7 8,000 4,700,000 47 Finland 1.7 9,000 5,482,000 48 Denmark 1.6 9,000 5,689,000 49 Sweden 1.6 15,000 9,764,000 50 Luxembourg 1.5 <1,000 567,000

Vulnerability within Europe and Central Asia

FIGURE 8 Regional average vulnerability scores by dimension, Europe and Central Asia

Governance issues 49.3

Lack of basic needs 31.1

Inequality 32.3

Disenfranchised groups 34.0

E ects of conﬂict 32.4

Overall 46.1 weighted average

020406080 100

Countries in Europe and Central Asia scored consistently anxiety over the refugee and migrant crises (Figure 8). well on vulnerability measures across all five dimensions, On this dimension, scores ranged from a high of 60 percent which reflects the generally higher average GDP per capita in Poland to a low of two percent in Iceland. Overall, the for this region. Interestingly, Europe and Central Asia highest vulnerability score across all dimensions was performed relatively poorly on the disenfranchised groups in Turkmenistan (58 percent) and the lowest was in dimension of vulnerability, which may reflect increasing Denmark (one percent).

TABLE 20 Estimated vulnerability to modern slavery by country, Europe and Central Asia

Dis- Overall Governance Lack of enfranchised Effects of weighted Country issues basic needs Inequality groups conflict average

Turkmenistan 80.2 21.5 31.4 32.6 15.9 58.1 Tajikistan 67.4 30.9 32.8 27.8 30.1 55.8 Ukraine 54.0 15.9 46.4 39.0 62.2 54.4 Russia 59.3 13.5 38.6 34.1 51.9 51.6 Turkey 47.0 22.2 47.0 48.6 47.9 51.6 Azerbaijan 60.3 21.2 23.9 35.7 32.5 47.8 Uzbekistan 71.7 20.3 32.6 9.0 18.0 47.5 Belarus 64.9 16.7 23.9 39.4 20.8 47.3 Bosnia and Herzegovina 52.0 16.4 31.7 50.7 34.1 46.4 Macedonia, the former Yugoslav 48.4 17.4 42.5 50.6 27.3 45.6 Republic of Albania 46.0 20.7 44.3 48.4 27.0 45.2 Kosovo 53.1 16.0 39.3 49.7 12.0 43.8 Armenia 51.1 18.9 33.8 46.3 22.1 43.6 Kazakhstan 60.4 14.5 25.1 38.2 19.5 43.3 Kyrgyzstan 49.6 19.7 35.4 42.6 23.2 42.8 Moldova, Republic of 42.0 22.9 35.3 58.3 18.1 41.6 Georgia 41.5 19.3 33.9 43.9 31.4 39.2 Greece 38.5 14.4 36.4 56.0 23.6 37.1 96 Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 20 continued.

Dis- Overall Governance Lack of enfranchised Effects of weighted Country issues basic needs Inequality groups conflict average

Israel 35.8 19.1 27.5 48.5 38.6 36.4 Montenegro 39.4 15.0 37.4 50.9 18.3 35.8 Serbia 39.1 15.2 31.6 40.9 27.5 33.9 Romania 35.8 19.5 32.6 52.0 16.1 33.9 Croatia 35.7 20.2 34.1 48.3 12.2 32.7 Bulgaria 33.0 14.7 43.3 44.1 17.4 31.3 Estonia 35.2 13.7 27.4 52.2 12.4 29.2 Italy 31.7 14.4 45.4 31.0 19.3 28.3 Slovakia 29.9 15.1 29.9 51.2 14.2 27.2 Lithuania 29.2 15.4 35.6 46.3 9.7 26.2 Latvia 31.7 15.9 23.8 44.0 10.3 24.6 Poland 24.5 13.7 27.5 59.6 13.6 24.4 Hungary 23.9 14.8 32.9 48.3 15.5 23.6 Slovenia 22.4 16.6 30.6 45.6 6.4 20.1 Cyprus 24.5 16.7 32.6 29.7 10.1 19.1 Czech Republic 25.1 13.9 21.0 37.1 18.2 19.1 France 17.3 15.4 29.4 21.2 28.5 15.3 Belgium 20.0 15.0 29.9 19.3 12.3 13.1 Spain 17.2 18.3 33.5 15.1 14.2 12.8 United Kingdom 15.9 15.6 25.1 12.4 27.8 11.1 Germany 15.9 15.0 22.8 15.7 24.7 10.4 Ireland 17.2 17.0 24.3 10.9 20.1 10.4 Portugal 12.2 15.6 31.7 20.7 9.7 8.5 Luxembourg 17.7 13.7 24.5 12.1 14.3 8.4 Finland 18.6 16.0 15.0 17.8 11.2 8.2 Netherlands 12.8 13.6 26.0 16.0 12.2 6.1 Norway 15.7 17.8 13.1 9.4 10.8 4.5 Sweden 10.2 17.0 17.4 13.0 18.3 4.3 Iceland 20.6 11.7 21.1 4.1 1.8 4.2 Austria 12.6 12.2 18.2 23.5 3.1 3.4 Switzerland 11.6 12.2 15.2 20.1 4.9 1.5 Denmark 8.7 15.3 13.8 15.2 12.5 1.0 Regional Findings 97

A picture taken in 2011 shows irregular migrants from Burkina Faso working in Foggia, southern Italy during the tomato harvest. Workers in the agriculture sector in Italy frequently face exploitative working conditions, ranging from violation of contract provisions through to severe abuse and forced labour. These workers experience forms of exploitation and abuse, including not receiving adequate remuneration and being controlled by middlemen or labour brokers, known as caporali. Rather than being paid a salary, these men can be paid by the hour or by the number of crates they fill (shown in the image). The second option is illegal in Italy, but many migrants choose this means of payment so they may earn more money, up to 40 Euros per day. The standard salary, working 10-12 hours a day, is around 20 Euros. Regardless of salary, these workers then have to pay the caporali for transportation, food, and water. Photo credit: Alessando Penso 98 Global Slavery Index 2018

Government responses within Europe and Central Asia

While there is evident variation at the subregional level, Generally speaking, governments have improved their overall the Europe and Central Asia region has the responses in recent years by taking more steps to strongest response to modern slavery, scoring an average strengthen their legislation, provide protective services BB rating. In Europe in particular, governments are generally for victims, establish coordination and accountability characterised by high levels of political will and resources. mechanisms, and respond to risk. Countries in Central These countries also have multiple regional bodies which Asia have also taken steps to tackle state-imposed forced hold them to account and monitor their responses. For labour in recent years, as shown by a reduction in forced example, the European Union’s proactive approach to labour in Tajikistan and the willingness of the government tackling modern slavery means that Europe leads the of Uzbekistan to engage with the ILO.12 More needs to way in engaging with business as well as taking steps to be done, however, to reduce rates of forced labour in investigate public procurement. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan so that their responses prevent mass mobilisation of the population in the annual cotton harvest. TABLE 21 Movements in government response rating for Europe and Central Asia 2016 to 2018

2016 Change 2018 2016 Change 2018 Country Rating in rating Rating Country Rating in rating Rating

Moldova, Republic Netherlands A A BB BB of United Kingdom BBB BBB* Greece CCC BB Sweden BBB BBB Kosovo B BB Belgium BBB BBB Poland BB BB Croatia BBB BBB Armenia B BB Spain BBB BBB Slovakia B BB Norway BBB BBB Ukraine B BB Portugal BBB BBB Czech Republic BB BB Montenegro BB BBB Israel B BB Cyprus BB BBB Estonia CCC B Macedonia, the Bosnia and former Yugoslav BB BBB B B Herzegovina Republic of Azerbaijan CCC B Austria BBB BBB Turkey B B Georgia BB BBB Iceland B B Italy B BBB Luxembourg CCC B Serbia BB BBB Romania B B France BB BBB Kyrgyzstan CCC B Latvia BB BBB Belarus CCC B Switzerland BB BBB Tajikistan CCC CCC Albania BB BB Kazakhstan CCC CCC Slovenia BB BB Uzbekistan CC CCC Lithuania BB BB Turkmenistan CC CC Denmark BB BB Russia CC CC Hungary BB BB Malta*** Finland BB BB

Ireland BB BB *Countries that scored -1 on a negative indicator could not score above a BBB rating Germany BB BB **Not rated in 2016 Global Slavery Index Bulgaria B BB ***Included for the first time in 2018, therefore a rating is not provided. All data are available via the Global Slavery Index website Regional Findings 99

TABLE 22 Government response rating, milestone percentage, and total score by country, Europe and Central Asia

Support Criminal Address Supply Rating Country survivors justice Coordination risk chains TOTAL

A Netherlands 72.2 72.2 75.0 92.9 36.7 75.2 BBB* United Kingdom 82.0 73.9 62.5 73.8 26.7 71.5 BBB Sweden 73.1 64.4 81.3 73.8 18.3 68.7 BBB Belgium 72.2 53.9 87.5 73.8 36.7 68.3 BBB Croatia 77.0 78.3 56.3 69.0 18.3 68.2 BBB Spain 79.3 65.6 62.5 73.8 0.0 66.9 BBB Norway 68.1 82.8 56.3 73.8 10.0 66.8 BBB Portugal 62.6 69.4 68.8 83.3 8.3 66.3 BBB Montenegro 79.3 70.0 56.3 61.9 0.0 64.0 BBB Cyprus 68.1 77.8 56.3 61.9 18.3 63.4 Macedonia, the former Yugoslav BBB 70.4 67.2 75.0 61.9 0.0 63.2 Republic of BBB Austria 72.8 61.1 68.8 61.9 18.3 63.1 BBB Georgia 74.1 63.9 56.3 69.0 0.0 62.8 BBB Italy 58.3 78.9 50.0 83.3 26.7 62.0 BBB Serbia 63.9 75.0 56.3 69.0 0.0 61.9 BBB France 42.4 71.7 93.8 71.4 18.3 61.5 BBB Latvia 47.0 61.7 93.8 71.4 18.3 60.9 BBB Switzerland 66.7 60.6 37.5 81.0 0.0 60.0 BB Albania 72.8 63.3 68.8 66.7 0.0 59.9 BB Slovenia 60.4 57.8 56.3 73.8 18.3 59.6 BB Lithuania 46.3 62.8 68.8 78.6 18.3 59.1 BB Denmark 62.6 56.1 50.0 69.0 28.3 58.6 BB Hungary 64.8 47.2 56.3 71.4 18.3 58.2 BB Finland 53.7 49.4 81.3 71.4 8.3 57.9 BB Ireland 65.9 42.2 62.5 69.0 18.3 57.7 BB Germany 61.7 57.8 56.3 57.1 36.7 57.1 BB Bulgaria 59.8 49.4 56.3 66.7 18.3 55.8 BB Moldova, Republic of 58.5 61.1 62.5 59.5 0.0 55.7 BB Greece 68.5 66.1 43.8 45.2 18.3 55.1 BB Kosovo 66.7 62.7 37.5 59.5 0.0 54.8 BB Poland 53.3 42.2 68.8 69.0 8.3 53.9 BB Armenia 54.6 51.1 56.3 66.7 0.0 53.2 BB Slovakia 48.7 52.2 62.5 64.3 18.3 53.2 BB Ukraine 65.7 46.1 62.5 66.7 0.0 53.0 BB Czech Republic 47.0 54.4 81.3 50.0 28.3 52.9 BB Israel 57.2 56.1 43.8 61.9 0.0 52.1 B Estonia 41.3 36.1 43.8 81.0 18.3 48.8 B Bosnia and Herzegovina 60.2 47.8 25.0 76.2 0.0 48.6 B Azerbaijan 28.0 71.7 62.5 59.5 0.0 48.2 B Turkey 66.7 57.2 37.5 33.3 0.0 47.4 B Iceland 48.7 54.4 37.5 52.4 8.3 46.4 B Luxembourg 47.4 33.9 68.8 50.0 8.3 45.4 B Romania 53.3 52.2 50.0 42.9 18.3 43.9 B Kyrgyzstan 33.0 48.3 56.3 61.9 0.0 40.9 B Belarus 48.9 27.8 37.5 66.7 0.0 40.1 CCC Tajikistan 38.9 36.1 43.8 40.5 0.0 33.0 CCC Kazakhstan 42.8 50.0 37.5 26.2 0.0 32.8 CCC Uzbekistan 30.2 33.9 31.3 64.3 0.0 30.4 CC Turkmenistan 17.8 40.0 31.3 61.9 0.0 27.1 CC Russia 17.0 32.2 37.5 40.5 0.0 20.7 No 13 rating Malta *Indicates where a country could not score above a BBB. These countries have received a negative rating for policies that hinder their response to modern slavery. Endnotes

Endnotes

1 As noted in the methodology (Appendix 2), the vulnerability model is 12 See for example, International Labour Organization 2018, Third-party based on data collected for a reference period ending on 15 April 2017. monitoring of measures against child labour and forced labour during the 2017 cotton harvest in Uzbekistan. Available from: http://www.ilo. 2 International Labour Organization (ILO) & Walk Free Foundation 2017, org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---ipec/documents/publication/ Methodology of the global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour wcms_617830.pdf. [20 February 2018]. See also: Human Rights Watch & and forced marriage, ILO, p. 78. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/ Uzbek -German Forum for Human Rights 2017, wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---ipec/documents/publication/ 'We Can’t Refuse to Pick wcms_586127.pdf. [31 January 2018]. Cotton' Forced and Child Labor Linked to World Bank Group Investments in Uzbekistan. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/ 3 Seychelles was included in our assessment of government responses in report_pdf/uzbekistan0617_web_3.pdf [23 October 2017]. See also: 2018, however as this was the first year we collected data for this country Human Rights Watch 2013, Uzbekistan: Forced Labor Widespread in we did not include its rating in the GSI. Data collected can be found in the Cotton Harvest. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/25/ database at https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/data/. uzbekistan-forced-labor-widespread-cotton-harvest. [9 February 2018].

4 Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts 13 Malta was included in our assessment of government responses in 2018, and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines were however as this was the first year we collected data for this country we included in our assessment of government responses in 2018, however did not include its rating in the GSI. Data collected can be found in the as this was the first year we collected data for these countries we did database at https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/data/. not include their ratings in the GSI. Data collected can be found in the database at https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/data/.

5 International Labour Organization (ILO) & Walk Free Foundation 2017, Methodology: Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage, ILO, p.78. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/ groups/public/---ed_norm/---ipec/documents/publication/wcms_586127. pdf [31 January 2018].

6 Estimates for the region are likely to significantly underestimate the scale of modern slavery due to substantial gaps in the available data.

7 International Labour Organization (ILO) & Walk Free Foundation 2017, Methodology: Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage, ILO, p.78. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/ groups/public/---ed_norm/---ipec/documents/publication/wcms_586127.pdf [31 January 2018] 8 Amnesty International 2018, Myanmar: Fresh evidence of ongoing ethnic cleansing as military starves, abducts and robs Rohingya, 7 February. Available from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/02/ myanmar-fresh-evidence-of-ongoing-ethnic-cleansing-as-military- starves-abducts-robs-rohingya/. [1 March 2018].

9 “Given the pervasive sexual violence that has marked this and previous military campaigns against the Rohingya in northern Rakhine State, the abduction of women and young girls raises serious concerns of rape and sexual slavery.” Amnesty International 2018, Myanmar: Fresh evidence of ongoing ethnic cleansing as military starves, abducts and robs Rohingya, 7 February. Available from: https://www.amnesty.org/ en/latest/news/2018/02/myanmar-fresh-evidence-of-ongoing-ethnic- cleansing-as-military-starves-abducts-robs-rohingya/. [1 March 2018]. See also: International Organization for Migration 2017, UN Migration Agency Warns of Trafficking, Labour Exploitation, Sexual Abuse of Rohingya Refugees, Press Release 14 November. Available from: https://www.iom. int/news/un-migration-agency-warns-trafficking-labour-exploitation- sexual-abuse-rohingya-refugees. [1 March 2018].

10 Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu were included in our assessment of government responses in 2018, however as this was the first year we collected data for these countries we did not include their ratings in the GSI. Data collected can be found in the database at https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/data/.

11 One of the few examples of a survey covering forced marriage-related topics is from Kyrgyzstan. According to findings of a survey undertaken in Kyrgyzstan, almost 4 percent of married women in the country reported having been kidnapped by their husbands without a prior understanding. A separate question posed to all respondents in the same survey showed that a large majority of the population is somewhat or very worried that “a daughter / grand-daughter / sister will be kidnapped by someone for marriage (bride stealing).” These questions have also been included in a new ICVS-based survey in Kazakhstan, funded by the European Commission, to be conducted in 2017. See further: van Dijk, J 2016, ‘Illuminating the Dark Figure of Crime: Crime Victimisation Surveys and Beyond,’ Newsletter of the European Society of Criminology. Available from: http://escnewsletter.org/ /2016-3/illuminating-dark-figure-crime- victimisation-surveys-and-beyond. [28 February 2018].